HT without a dedicated preamp or processor?

Perhaps with 30+ ft. of speaker cable, 2M worth of RCA ICs, and over 20 ft of HDMI... things don't balance out exactly right in my outfit... lip sync wise.

Or maybe it's 'cause the video wires run up hill, and the audio wires run down hill.

Maybe it's due to my ears being faster than my eyes!

It's not quite to the level of the old Spagetti westerns & Kung fu flicks though.

while I didnt research this in detail Miranda Technolgies (miranda.com) has a 4 channel analog lyp sync processor...maybe use the this for center and mains would work?

After all these years doing AV, as a hobbiest and professional, believe me. If I could forgo as many of the pieces of the elctronics chain for purity sake, I would! I would go straight from my blu ray player directly to the amps, and be done with it! - all for the sake of sonic excellence. However, it just doesn't work as well. First, my experience on the analog side alone suggests that a preamp in the loop provides better gain and therefore dynamics to the sound - it's otherwise usually flatter sounding. As for processing and such in an AV pre/pro situation, I also find it's much more robust going digital to an AV pre/receiver -processing outboard - then on down the chain for much better dynamics, dimmensionality, and an overall stronger pressentation to the sound this way.
I've tried both digital and analog sources direct to amplification many many times over the years, and passive or no preamp route almost always yields weaker dynamics, period! Similar results, of lesser performance characteristics, typically follow when doing this from your video source - without outboard processor - in a multi-ch digital HT setup, as well.
Believe me, if I thought I could get superior overall sound without a preamp or AV pre for my uses, I of all people most DEFINITELY would!...and save a few bucks in the process. Just doesn't work out as well in my experience

Avgoround

Thanks for the thoughtful and insightful comments. I tend to side with many of your thoughts.

I had a short discussion with an Oppo Tech not long ago about using the 95 or 93 sanws proc or preamp, given it’s volume control ability. The Tech said blatantly oppo does not recommend using their device in such a ‘stand alone device’ configuration.

Albeit no real in depth reason (IMHO) was given, aside from the fact a dedicated pre/proc ought to have a better volume control hardware, and the possibility of more gain being available from that dedicated controller.

Those thoughts then bring me back to and certinaly begs the question be asked, “If then, the BDP 95” carries their best perspective on analog audio output, Why then would they implement a sub standard volume control on their top tier audio/video product?

BTW… the volume control installed on the BDP 95 is the same one as the BDP 93.

Immediately, there are obviously two connection interfaces, nominally a loss of as much as 3db occurs at each ‘hard’ connection point, hence you now have a 6db loss at least to overcome.

Add to that mix perhaps an impeadance shortfall, or the gain of the added appliance is attenuated to overcome said shortfall, and quality might be hamstrung.. Or there becomes that as a risk.

I do agree with your comments on the addition of another device in the signal chaim affecting the ‘voice’ of the presentation in a more positive fashion, although NOT primarily due to ‘dynamics’ per se.

Adding my line stage preamp into the mix between source and amp has inevitably in each case, improved the sonic presentation, every time. I feel it should be said as well, the Thor TA 1000 MK II is one of the best line stage preamps ever made IMHHO.

The problem with the ideal of the shorter the signal path the better precludes any consideration of instituting a better quality, higher level device into the fray. It’s a quite short sighted viewpoint, and applies only on paper…. And where no other experience of trial and error with top tier componentry has been examined.

Theory always fuels contention, but practice provides proof. Limited practice yields only incidental or limited truth (s).

Naturally, the exact opposite is true too… adding in a preamp or processor of lesser proficiency and/or quality hinders the A/V outcome…. Or does nothing to improve it.

So the question which haunts all of us ‘perfectionists with poor track records’, is this:

“Which one? At this price ?? will garner us better AV results and not denigrate the signal instead?”

It seems then, daunting enough a task to have on hand a $1K source, or more, and weld it to a preamp or processor which reputedly is able to reformulate and increase upon it’s own characteristics giving us a better show as the result of that joining.

I suspect too, it amounts to more than a better volume pot in the controller.

I recently received the Oppo 103 as a gift, but returned it not because of the picture or sound, but the heavy handed restrictions placed on the player for digital playback of stored video media. I want my system to be digitized video through centralized NAS and use of Plex or other software to distribute sound and video. The fact that Oppo restricted playback of iso and other lossless video formats is what killed this idea (and player) in my mind. The idea of direct hookup to amps really intrigued me though. With my projector and NAS directly hooked up to the Oppo with 7 cables to the amplifiers seemed beautifully simple. Less cables would mean not only cheaper, but also with less room for error introduction into the chain. It was the Oppo's copy protection that killed this idea for me. Also, speaker setup in the Oppo is quite primitive compared to what is available in a number of preamps.